SOE 18: New Tour, New Despair...

[Gonna Run 2 U]

There's no way in hell they play the entire album in sequence. It's completely front loaded. Streets or I Still Haven't Found will close the show if not the album part of the set list.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[gareth brown]

They're definitely playing the whole album, I'm surprised there are people even entertaining the idea that they wouldn't!

Yeah, it's U2, and the Reality/Our Hopes And Dreams Ratio is a steady 9:1, but even they aren't going to put "Every Song" on the posters and go back on that.

I expect they'll either shuffle the album or play it in reverse order and to be honest either of those is crap in my opinion. Opening with the album isn't going to happen, obviously, but if they played the right songs leading up to starting the album with Streets halfway through the set it'd be great.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Question... have the people who are all "ohhhhhhh my god they can't play it in sequence cause streets is first!!!" ever seen another act do this?

I mean... It certainly didn't ruin the concert when Bruce played Thunder Road, Born To Run and Jungleland in the first half of the show, just because they're big hits that normally don't come out till the encores.

They can play it in order, and it'll be just fine if they do. The world won't end if Streets is played in the first third of the set list. Life will go on. They've got plenty of great songs that could fill out spots late in the setlist.

 

[digitize]

I'm sure they could play the album in order, and that the show will be great if they do. However, I can't help but think that they could cook up a much more interesting setlist if they played all of the songs mingled into the rest of the set where appropriate, partially because the back half of JT is a bit less exciting than the front half.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[kabigon]

I'd be more concerned about having a strong encore. Remember reading on 360 the exodus every show between WOWY and MOS.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Question... have the people who are all "ohhhhhhh my god they can't play it in sequence cause streets is first!!!" ever seen another act do this?

I mean... It certainly didn't ruin the concert when Bruce played Thunder Road, Born To Run and Jungleland in the first half of the show, just because they're big hits that normally don't come out till the encores.

They can play it in order, and it'll be just fine if they do. The world won't end if Streets is played in the first third of the set list. Life will go on. They've got plenty of great songs that could fill out spots late in the setlist.

Personally, I think opening the show with Streets would be epic, perhaps an extended organ opening. Then, why not close the show with Streets? I mean, Vertigo x2 worked because it was a rocker that fired the crowd up(I thought it worked at least) and Streets is much more of a crowd pleaser. For Streets 2, I would suggest forgoing the slow burn opening and going right in with the guitar. I would even suggest a version that's a little different, perhaps even an adjusted ending.

Bottom line, they could play Streets 21 straight times and some people would be happy, so opening and closing with their most prolific live song makes for a hell of a show.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

 

[kabigon]

I'll pass on diluted Streets.

 

[lazarus]

Nothing is set in stone, but I think Adam's words were pretty clear about what the intent is at this point:

I spoke to Edge a few weeks ago. He wasn't sure the show was going to start with "Streets" and go right into the album. How do you see that happening?

We haven't really sat down and worked out the dynamics of it yet, but I suspect it would sit as the crown in the show. I think we would definitely want to open with perhaps something that is not dissimilar to the Songs of Innocence run [where we did our early 1980s songs] and get people in the mood for this thing that's coming and you give some sense of history of where it came from. Then it'll be a scene change. … This is my guess. We won't know until we start playing it around quite a bit. We will either start with "Streets," or end with it, I might think, but there will be a scene change. Whether or not we go completely in sequence, we've yet to work out.

So the idea of playing some pre-JT material to open the show sounds like what they're looking at right now. As he said, a scene change would be involved, so maybe there's a break after the first run, and then the band does the whole album in the middle of the show.

The thing is, if you don't open the JT section with Streets, then what else? The only other contender I can imagine is In God's Country.

 

[dan_smee]

Question... have the people who are all "ohhhhhhh my god they can't play it in sequence cause streets is first!!!" ever seen another act do this?

I mean... It certainly didn't ruin the concert when Bruce played Thunder Road, Born To Run and Jungleland in the first half of the show, just because they're big hits that normally don't come out till the encores.

They can play it in order, and it'll be just fine if they do. The world won't end if Streets is played in the first third of the set list. Life will go on. They've got plenty of great songs that could fill out spots late in the setlist.

I saw Jimmy Eat World's Futures 10 year anniversary show - it was the album, then 17 songs from throughout their career - and it really worked.

I don't see how they think they can't open with Streets when they did it for he majority of shows in the original tour. That said, I really don't mind the idea of them starting with some early songs to establish the path to JT.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm sure they could play the album in order, and that the show will be great if they do. However, I can't help but think that they could cook up a much more interesting setlist if they played all of the songs mingled into the rest of the set where appropriate, partially because the back half of JT is a bit less exciting than the front half.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yet I'm much more excited to see the songs in the back half.

 

[lazarus]

I don't see how they think they can't open with Streets when they did it for he majority of shows in the original tour.

As I just quotes Adam above, "get people in the mood for what's coming". To just blast out of the gate with their most powerful song is going to make the entire rest of the concert seem anticlimactic.

This is something you build up to, create some suspense and excitement. At the beginning of a show, people are still getting situated, slurping down their first drink, whatever. You play some more fun stuff up front, start getting a little heavier, and then bring on the main event.

 

[DeVaul]

Yet I'm much more excited to see the songs in the back half.

So say we all.
Well, most of us.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[jphelmet]

Question... have the people who are all "ohhhhhhh my god they can't play it in sequence cause streets is first!!!" ever seen another act do this?

Did you read the interviews, where the band is obviously wrestling with the idea and how if fits with their long held practice of having sections in the show?

Sure lots of bands play their albums straight through, and lots of bands play setlists that seem to be picked at random with no thought of how they flow together. U2 is not one of them. So this is certainly something new for them. That is why I am skeptical.

I agree it would be fine if they did. I would enjoy it. I agree Streets would be fine early or even first. I just don't think U2, and the way they put a show together will be happy with that. That have already said as much.

I have seen three of my favorite albums of all time, all played in sequence and it makes the show so predictable, that I would say it would be much better if they weren't done in sequence. That is just my opinion.

 

[kabigon]

I have seen three of my favorite albums of all time, all played in sequence and it makes the show so predictable, that I would say it would be much better if they weren't done in sequence. That is just my opinion.

Did those shows have albums which had songs not played for 25+ years?

 

[Axver]

Question... have the people who are all "ohhhhhhh my god they can't play it in sequence cause streets is first!!!" ever seen another act do this?

I mean... It certainly didn't ruin the concert when Bruce played Thunder Road, Born To Run and Jungleland in the first half of the show, just because they're big hits that normally don't come out till the encores.

They can play it in order, and it'll be just fine if they do. The world won't end if Streets is played in the first third of the set list. Life will go on. They've got plenty of great songs that could fill out spots late in the setlist.

I bloody well want Streets to open, but Edge seemed pretty serious about not opening with it.

partially because the back half of JT is a bit less exciting than the front half.

Mate, Side 2 is clearly better than Side 1, and the main reason any serious fan would attend this. I don't need to hear the first four songs again, but oh boy the rest.

I don't see how they think they can't open with Streets when they did it for he majority of shows in the original tour.

I think part of the problem is that especially in European stadiums the effect of opening with all the red might be lost in mid-summer. It's no coincidence that it was the European leg of the original JT Tour where Streets missed 12 shows.

 

[digitize]

Mate, Side 2 is clearly better than Side 1, and the main reason any serious fan would attend this. I don't need to hear the first four songs again, but oh boy the rest.

"Exciting" was a terrible choice of word on my part. What I really meant was "interesting to the casual concert-goers buying 90+% of the tickets".

The average concert-goer won't give a damn about Trip, IGC, RHMT, MOTD, and Exit. To cluster them all together creates a major bathroom break for most of the audience.

Frankly, I question the decision to waste setlist spots on Trip and RHMT at all, although the prospect of hearing OTH live makes up for all sins.

 

[Axver]

The average concert-goer won't give a damn about Trip, IGC, RHMT, MOTD, and Exit. To cluster them all together creates a major bathroom break for most of the audience.

As I literally just posted in another thread, I don't get this mindset. It's not like they're playing Rejoice or Beach Sequence or White As Snow or Holy Joe or whatever.

This album is their best seller. IGC was a successful single. It and Exit are on U2's best-known live release. U2's weird blind spot to playing anything beyond the first five (or, really, first four) seems to have trained us to consider Side 2 packed with rarities nobody knows or cares about. But come on, it's not like casual fans only own a five-song EP. Side 2's songs may not be the big singles but they're very well known and will get a good reception.

But this is another reason I think the back to front idea for playing the album is so good: play front to back and the second half appears to be a decline of audience enthusiasm. Other way around? Everybody's thrilled as they go into JT, they're enjoying the tunes, and it's building towards the most beloved tracks. Perfect. (This is why U2 won't do it.)

 

[lazarus]

This album is their best seller. IGC was a successful single. It and Exit are on U2's best-known live release.

Exit is only featured in the movie, not on the album.

 

[Axver]

Yes, that's what I meant, RAH movie vs ZooTV Sydney, UABRS, Slane, etc.

 

[lazarus]

Ahh. Makes more sense because they've only had 4 live audio releases, and two of them were EPs.

 

[AndrewCowley]

Was thinking...

It's about time U2 got on board with making the audio of all their shows available for purchase. I simply don't have time to fart arse around with torrents thesedays and would be more than happy to pay $$$ to download official audio.

Oh and as for side two of JT, I cannot understand anyone thinking those songs would be a dead patch in the setlist. It's a mighty fine collection of songs, surely as ingrained in the minds of us who experienced the JT era as the main songs on side one. Those songs have been tragically ignored and their resurrection will be one good thing to come from this tour.

 

[david]

I predict "Streets" will open The Joshua Tree portion of the set.....

?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LemonMelon]

Man oh man am I excited to hear I Still Haven't Found That Which I Was Searching For and With our Without U, those are good sangs from a good band

I won't know the other sangs but that's okey, I've got my reader's digest with me and I know the opening band's song called Oh Oh Ohhhh Oh Oh

 

[gweeps]

When did Mercy get a mention?

By the way, if they don't just tweak and release the 2004 version, whatever they come out with will pale in comparison. There's magic in that demo.

 

[BVS]

They haven't, someone is just trying to get a rise.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Numb1075]

I am of the opinion that they will open up with w/ upbeat classics like Vertigo, BD, & IWF etc..Throw in a song or two from SoE, play a slow song or two, and then play JT in it's entirety beginning w/ Streets.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Question... have the people who are all "ohhhhhhh my god they can't play it in sequence cause streets is first!!!" ever seen another act do this?

I mean... It certainly didn't ruin the concert when Bruce played Thunder Road, Born To Run and Jungleland in the first half of the show, just because they're big hits that normally don't come out till the encores.

They can play it in order, and it'll be just fine if they do. The world won't end if Streets is played in the first third of the set list. Life will go on. They've got plenty of great songs that could fill out spots late in the setlist.

When I say Radiohead on the In Rainbows tour they played the entire album mixed among other songs, I have no problem with this concept.

 

[trevgreg]

Was thinking...

It's about time U2 got on board with making the audio of all their shows available for purchase. I simply don't have time to fart arse around with torrents thesedays and would be more than happy to pay $$$ to download official audio.

Oh and as for side two of JT, I cannot understand anyone thinking those songs would be a dead patch in the setlist. It's a mighty fine collection of songs, surely as ingrained in the minds of us who experienced the JT era as the main songs on side one. Those songs have been tragically ignored and their resurrection will be one good thing to come from this tour.

I don't see them changing the download stuation soon, although since I still have time to make my way through a torrent or three, it doesn't seem to bother me a whole lot. That being said, after downloading shows I saw for Metallica and Springsteen (and soon the Chili Peppers), I admit that it would be a pretty convenient thing for them to do at some point. I still see complaints about mixing or whatever from some soundboard shows that are offered, but I haven't had any problems with the ones I've gotten before.

And agreed on TJT situation. If there's any album where anyone less than hard-core fans will know the lesser-known songs, it's this one.

 

[TheGeekyU2Fan]

Songs of Experience is going to be released in late 2017, from an article I read.

 

[The_acrobat]

I once read an article that said it would be released in late 2016.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference